Proverbs 27:10 says, "Do not forsake your friend and the friend of your father, and do not go to your brother's house when disaster strikes you; better a neighbor nearby than a brother far away." I was recently in a discussion about that verse, and what the term "neighbor" means. Here were our opinions about how to apply this verse to modern times: (1) Neighbor = another Christian geographically close to you, and brother means a close relative. The reason for that one is that in the OT a neighbor would probably have been an Israelite. (2) Since "brother" in the OT often = all Israelites, neighbor could mean a non-Christian. That would make sense, since asking your non-Christian neighbor for help is a great way to build a relationship. (3) A leader in our church had another idea that seemed to be a good solution. He thought that the scripture means we shouldn't be too selective about whom we ask for help. However, we decided to send an email and ask for help. -- Thomas Kathmann
Wow, you guys are going deep! I'm not sure Solomon himself would have made all those distinctions! If I had to choose one of your options, I like opinion (3). But then truth isn't determined by personal preference, or by selection from a smörgåsbord!
We need to ask, How would the proverb have been understood at the time it was uttered? Is there any illuminating background material? Is our interpretation consistent with other revealed truth? Let me speak to each of the three interpretations you advanced, because I think the exercise could be helpful to others listening in on our discussion.
(1) At the surface level, Solomon seems to be saying that we should build good relationships with more than just blood relatives. The neighbor is related by friendship with the person's father, and it makes a lot of sense to be on good terms with those who live in proximity to us. For all of us, there will come times of disaster, when we will need support. God envisions a local community of support. Could this be all the proverb intends to communicate? The interpretation attempting to bring the proverb into the new covenant seems far-fetched. Why "update" it at all? Better to understand it in its original setting and then apply the principle. Besides, to restrict the meaning of "neighbor" to a fellow believer seems to be without warrant. Since when are our neighbors only persons of faith? Was it ever really this way in the OT?
(2) While this interpretation seeks to make the proverb practical, it reads far too much into the text. A basic principle of hermeneutics (the business of interpreting the Bible) is that "a passage cannot mean what it never did mean." We mustn't strain too hard, seeking to ferret out hidden meanings. Besides, by what authority can we be sure our view is correct, if we resort to such esoteric interpretations?
(3) This view, I think, comes closest to the truth of the passage. While certainly we do need to "select" to some extent, Solomon has indicated that the basis of selection is not to be close biological kinship alone.
In the process of analyzing the text, I would also search for other relevant biblical passages, perhaps examples of persons relying on their neighbors in time of crisis. I would review the life of Solomon himself to see if the proverb was uttered out of a personal trial recorded in scripture. I would look at the life of our Lord, comparing family relationships to dynamics with his disciples and others. As to background material, there is a parallel passage in the Assyrian Wisdom of Ahiqar, and a careful study would need to take this into account as well. I might consult a commentary or two on Proverbs. The one thing I would not do is assume that "The proverb speaks for itself," or "It requires no interpretation." While the real meaning may require some work before it comes to light, it rarely lies very deep below the surface.
The question is: What would this proverb have meant originally? That's what it means today. We must by all means resist the temptation to spiritualize the text or search for hidden meanings. As the best scholars would put it, Our interpretation needs to be subject to exegetical controls. (Exegesis means "drawing out" the meaning of the text.) Otherwise it will get out of control!
Summing up, both opinions (1) and (2) remind me of medieval Catholic exegesis, preoccupied with the "deeper," hidden meanings of passages, and must be rejected. Opinion (3), whether accidentally or otherwise, comes closer to the results obtained when applying the "historico-grammatical method," the approach taken by most biblical scholars, which respects contemporary culture and history, grammar, reason, and broader biblical theology.
Now before I let you go, I want to ask you a question. After speaking with your nearby Christian neighbors, why did you email your brother far away?
This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2004. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.
